2. misc-audio
  3. 152310-137844

Vinyl / Digital / and can you have too much information.

I am copying this from a thread of digital vs. analog spending, but thought it may be an interesting --- Discussion ---, not to pick which is better, but to have a conversation about an aspect of why some may prefer vinyl.
FIRST - A bit of an example to set the "mood"

A CD is 1411 bkps to achieve 44100 samples/second at 16 bits and 2 channels. What if we had an uncompressed signal at 128kbps? ... That would allow us to do say 2 channels, 10 bits, 6400 samples/sec or 3.2KHz. We could do 8 bits, at get up to 4KHz. Not too terribly impressive huh?

How do you think 8 bits at 8ksps would sound compared to a 128kbps MP3 or AAC? It would sound awful by comparison even though technically both have the same amount of information. Why does the MP3 sound better for the same raw information? Because the MP3 concentrates the information into areas in which the brain can make use of it.

Let's consider vinyl:   Perhaps due to dynamic compression during the mixing/mastering process, other intentional choices made during mixing and mastering, even what we consider limitations during playback, we are maximizing the audio information that the brain can take in. Perhaps that inherent "filtering" that a turntable does maximizes the useful audio information that the brain can take in my minimizing extraneous information that can cause information overload. I am more of a digital guy, but even I feel this happens at times.

That information limit will be different for different people. That could even explain why some love vinyl, and some, not so much. I think it could also speak to the listening fatigue that some claim to experience when listening to digital. It is simply information overload, especially when coupled with "loudness wars" information levels which could be considered extreme.

I can certainly make arguments against this:
  • Why are high end DACs" then viewed as being closer to vinyl? A counter is who is making those statements and why is their brain telling them that? Why do some of those DACs measure so poorly? Are those DACs even being "voiced"
  •  Why do non-OS R2R DACs sounds better (only to some). A counter is perhaps the high frequency artifacts that modulate into the audio band mask additional information allowing the brain to concentrate on what it most wants to hear?
  • Why do many then claim that analog tapes are the ultimate?  A counter is, again, some claim that.  I can also find many people that claim that digital sounds much closer to what the real instruments they hear, play and record sound like. 1/4" tape formats have "information limits" as well.

There is no right and wrong answer and this is not a topic of which is better, it is about understanding perception.
atdavid
atdavid OP
736 posts
 
1) Streaming online then eliminates all your arguments.2) Two old guys who know infinitely more about error correction codes than you, a bunch of guys who know far more about optics, and sensing created a system, that has 25% of the data for error correction, so that the vast majority of the errors on a disk that is only partially scratched, can be eliminated.3) CD ripper software can run slow, do multiple passes, etc.
4) I can take a wave file, burn it to a writeable CD, then read it back and do bit comparisons.5) You are shilling a product. Where is the independent proof. This is not a matter of listening, this is pure data integrity.
Post removed 
brettmcee's avatar
brettmcee
218 posts
 
I tend to agree with the original poster.  I think quite often it’s not that things are
more optimized for human listening, but are more easily reproduced by all the electronics and physical interactions involved. 
A tweeter capable of producing frequencies well above human hearing will reproduce those frequencies while also trying to reproduce the frequencies that are audible to us. Is this desirable? Wouldnt the tweeter perform more accurately more efficiently if it were only reproducing the frequencies that we can hear? A lot of nasty things can present themselves as high frequencies in digital formats. 
Even sending frequencies below the capabilities of your woofer is changing the accuracy and efficiency of the woofer. Why do we have a rumble filter for vinyl.

There is also the fact that the mastering that occurs to make something appropriate for vinyl does but much tighter controls on frequency response, in a sense making the presentation more stable and consistent.

Honestly, tape is the most enjoyable playback medium that I have found. And it seems like there is a lot of information there...  I have a feeling eventually we are going to find out that there is more artifacting in digital reproduction than we currently realize, much of it happening at the time of digitization. 
mezzrow
114 posts
 
millercarbon: as an objective outsider reading this thread with no preconceived notions, I think your input is unnecessarily dismissive, without saying much of substance or proving anything.  Your last two paragraphs make no sense at all. Seriously.
whoopycat
165 posts
 
A good solid state DAC has a signal to noise ratio of about 120db.  A good tube phono stage has a SNR of about 90db.  Similar ratios exist when you compare solid state amps to tube amps.  Yet lots of people swear by tubes and vinyl.  

Short answer to the OP is could be yes.  I think like the human brain craves beauty through the ears just like it does through the eyeballs.  Does higher SNR or lower distortion equal better sound?  Are better sound and beautiful sound the same thing? If I locked you in a 10x10 concrete room with Miles Davis, how long would you be able to listen before you were pounding at the door wanting to get out?  You would be hearing Miles with 100% accuracy and no distortion, and yet it probably would not be pleasing to hear.  
More to discover